[Zygonyx]

...
I agree that Pentax could sell about 10 000 FF cameras mainly to people sitting on a pool of K-mount lenses. That will make it a financial disaster. We won't see it anytime soon unless Pentax wants a loss leader for marketing reasons. Or, unless the DSLR marked change in favour of FF soon...

It would undoubtedly in my opinion, with a GRX like interchangeable lens serie... Ricoh, please be the first to step in !

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Sadly this thread is now, like the other, all but facts (while I think the OP's idea was to focus on facts). But as usual, on the web, one man's rumor is another man's fact and vice verse.

[PentaxRev]

Actually, the main problem is that very few people want or buy FF cameras. Image quality from APS sensor satisfies the need of about 95% of the market and the image quality of this sensor size is only going to get better. This and the price penalty of FF, particularly the lenses, will ensure that the FF will probably never exceed 10% of the DSLR market. If anything there will be a trend towards smaller sensors in the majority of the market. There will still be a market for larger sensors but it will remain small...

I'm a serious amateur and I agree. While there is no doubt that FF sensors deliver more, they are simply too expensive for what they offer, at least at present for most photographers.

I've put together my kit based upon the 1.5 crop factor. I love being able to use my 70-200 F2.8 lens at an equivalent 300 mm length. I love being able to use my 70-300 at an equivalent 450 mm length. While I recognize the limitation on the wide angle end, for me, my 10-20 which still shoots at 15mm is very sufficient. At some point I want to buy an even stronger telephoto in the 500 mm range and I will want the lens to reach an equivalent 750 mm.

Finally, even if I could afford a FF camera, which I presently can't, I don't want to have to go out and buy new glass for a larger sensor camera. Some of my glass would work on a FF, I try to buy it that way when I can, but there would still be major gaps which I would have to fill. As an amateur I could not justify the extra expense of a new camera and new glass at the same time.

Maybe image quality would improve so much that most photographers would recognize a huge advantage, but I doubt it for most of us.

[falconeye]

I love being able to use my 70-300 at an equivalent 450 mm length.

Just a minor remark here.
The conversion factor for the "reach" of long tele lenses isn't the crop factor but the ratio of pixel pitch. Currently, that can be anything from 0.6 (D3X/istD) over 0.9 (5DmkII/K10D) and 1 (D3x/K10D) to 1.8 (D700/K-5). So, it is more related to two particular cameras rather than the sensor format. Of course, the sensor may "outresolve" the lens. But then that's true for any sensor size as long as it is much smaller than the focal length.

BTW, it may be interesting to adapt the DA*300 to the Q as other than µFT, it has a much smaller pixel pitch than the K-5

[Class A]

The conversion factor for the "reach" of long tele lenses isn't the crop factor but the ratio of pixel pitch.

It depends on what you want to convert/compare.

Regarding FOV, the crop factor is the correct conversion factor.

Regarding resolution, your ratio of pixel pitch approach is correct. I guess part of what you wanted to convey is that if the latter is 1 then one can achieve the same FOV (or "reach") by just cropping the bigger sensor image to the dimensions of the smaller sensor image without any resolution disadvantage. Or, that the highest "reach" is provided by the sensor with the highest pixel pitch, independently of sensor size.

EDIT: Just noticed that you explicitly mention "conversion factor for the 'reach'..." so there should be no confusion. My bad, sorry. I didn't delete my post as it might be helpful to others.

[falconeye]

EDIT: Just noticed that you explicitly mention "conversion factor for the 'reach'..." so there should be no confusion.

Thanks for explaining exactly what I should have explained in the first place.

Many people use the crop factor to convert the "reach" of their tele lenses. This is particularly the case (and wrong) in the FourThird camp. I.e., it is a *very* bad idea to buy the very expensive Olympus Zuiko 300/2.8 FT lens to get a 400/4 APS-C or 600/5.6 full frame lens. Because it would require a 24MP FT camera (or soon a 35MP FT camera) which don't exist. I.e., despite the hefty price, the Zuiko 300/2.8 on an E-5 and DA*300/4 on a K-5 deliver very similiar images (the Zuiko would require a DA*340 to really match and the Zuiko delivers more light which the K-5 compensates by its better sensor implementation). For birding, the K-5 has the added benefit that cropping is done after the fact which makes it easier to keep a flying bird in frame.

All in all, I do not consider the smaller sensor a priori to have a benefit over the larger sensor when it comes to tele photography. And for wide angle, the larger sensor has a natural advantage (for a given registration distance).

[RonHendriks1966]

Many people use the crop factor to convert the "reach" of their tele lenses. This is particularly the case (and wrong) in the FourThird camp. I.e., it is a *very* bad idea to buy the very expensive Olympus Zuiko 300/2.8 FT lens to get a 400/4 APS-C or 600/5.6 full frame lens. Because it would require a 24MP FT camera (or soon a 35MP FT camera) which don't exist. I.e., despite the hefty price, the Zuiko 300/2.8 on an E-5 and DA*300/4 on a K-5 deliver very similiar images (the Zuiko would require a DA*340 to really match and the Zuiko delivers more light which the K-5 compensates by its better sensor implementation). For birding, the K-5 has the added benefit that cropping is done after the fact which makes it easier to keep a flying bird in frame.

What would make more sence regarding image quality:
A full frame sensor with like pixels of the K-5 (4,75micron) wich gives like 38 megapixel sensor or just big pixels like D3x?

[Pål Jensen]

All in all, I do not consider the smaller sensor a priori to have a benefit over the larger sensor when it comes to tele photography. And for wide angle, the larger sensor has a natural advantage (for a given registration distance).

This is like saying theres no benefit of a carrying a 35mm film camera over a MF film camera as you can awyas crop the latter. This ignores the cost and size issues that makes people shoot one over the other. It goes with the territory that smaller sensors or film area give lower quailty than larger ones and telling that you can crop the larger to fit the smaller is missing the point.....

Smaller sensors do indeed have have size and cost benefit for telephotos but they do this at the expense of image quality....

[Asahiflex]

What would make more sence regarding image quality:
A full frame sensor with like pixels of the K-5 (4,75micron) wich gives like 38 megapixel sensor or just big pixels like D3x?

What I want in a FF Pentax: less pixels (~20MP is enough for me) and NO shake reduction to keep costs and the size down to reasonable levels. I'd take hi-ISO over SR any day.

[jsherman999]

What I want in a FF Pentax: less pixels (~20MP is enough for me) and NO shake reduction to keep costs and the size down to reasonable levels. I'd take hi-ISO over SR any day.

Given the choice between in-body SR and a relatively small form-factor - if I indeed had to choose - I'd choose smaller also.

On my D90, I occasionally miss in-body SR. On my D700, I never really do.

[falconeye]

This is like saying theres no benefit of a carrying a 35mm film camera over a MF film camera as you can awyas crop the latter.

To some extent, yes. I see how this sounds absurd then

But one has to keep in mind that in my comparison, both cameras, the small and big one, would have the same lenses (because both shooting the same kind of film) and same mount (registration distance). So, it would be like an *ist (35mm) and *ist-APSC camera. I guess the size advantage of a *ist-APSC film camera would have been insignificant. Remains the cost of film. Which became zero with digital.

So yes, it is like saying what you say and yes, it sounds absurd but isn't. As long as you don't change the mount and the purchase cost differences aren't insane.

[falconeye]

What would make more sence regarding image quality:
A full frame sensor with like pixels of the K-5 (4,75micron) wich gives like 38 megapixel sensor or just big pixels like D3x?

More pixels yield better image quality. Who say the contrary don't consider that images should be scaled to match resolution before being compared.

So, that answer is easy.

But more pixels may come at a price. Purchase price, buffer speed, file size etc. So, all in all, it may be ok to make the pixels of a 35mm camera a bit bigger. A bit. I consider 35MP for an FF camera to become the sweet spot while APSC will increase to above 20MP.

btw, the D3x pixels are ok. The D700 has big pixels ...

Given the choice between in-body SR and a relatively small form-factor - if I indeed had to choose - I'd choose smaller also.

I don't think there is a need to choose.
SR only needs about 2mm border (possibly making the camera wider and higher by this measure) and, more cumbersome a second board and moveable stage (making the camera thicker by 3mm or so). Still, Pentax manages to make the K-5 smaller than its peers which don't sport SR.

I prefer a compact FF body. But I wouldn't want to give up SR if the gain in body size is 2 or 3mm per direction only.

One of the current problems with FF is that FF models are either crippled (D700 pixel pitch, 5DmkII ergonomics) or insanely expensive (incl. Sony when it comes to lens options). Canikon must do that to protect their higher-up pro business. Not so Pentax (the 645D would remain competitive anyway). IMHO, that's their chance they're currently missing. Maybe their last chance to regain lost market share.

[jsherman999]

I don't think there is a need to choose.
SR only needs about 2mm border (possibly making the camera wider and higher by this measure) and, more cumbersome a second board and moveable stage (making the camera thicker by 3mm or so). Still, Pentax manages to make the K-5 smaller than its peers which don't sport SR.

I prefer a compact FF body. But I wouldn't want to give up SR if the gain in body size is 2 or 3mm per direction only.

If that were the only difference, then we wouldn't really have to choose, you're right. These SR mechanisms seem to add more volume than that overall, though.

One of the current problems with FF is that FF models are either crippled (D700 pixel pitch, 5DmkII ergonomics) or insanely expensive (incl. Sony when it comes to lens options).

I just can't find fault with the D700's resolution/pitch. It's nearly the perfect camera in several ways. I guess if I needed to make enormous prints or crop heavily, it wouldn't be my fist choice, but for my needs I never feel that it's 12mp are not enough. And it's incredibly forgiving.

Canikon must do that to protect their higher-up pro business. Not so Pentax (the 645D would remain competitive anyway). IMHO, that's their chance they're currently missing. Maybe their last chance to regain lost market share.

Agreed...

[Zygonyx]

One of the current problems with FF is that FF models are either crippled (D700 pixel pitch, 5DmkII ergonomics) or insanely expensive (incl. Sony when it comes to lens options). Canikon must do that to protect their higher-up pro business. Not so Pentax (the 645D would remain competitive anyway). IMHO, that's their chance they're currently missing. Maybe their last chance to regain lost market share.

I agree totally with you.
Even if the margin is not tremendous with FF, it would certainly boost the entire product line...
And the SR mecanism should not make the 24x36mm body that bigger as you can see the difference btw *istDS (sorry i have'nt *istD) without SR and K-5 with it.
The K-x has SR and is even smaller than *istDS.

[Anton Magus]

Ricoh is the #1 copier manufacturer and seller in Europe and the Far East, and arguably in the USA as well, just depending on how you measure. They got there by a process of innovation and development of products which met both current and future market needs.

Along the way Ricoh has bought and merged with several other companies, not always direct competitors. However in every case, Ricoh has bought companies which were complementary and where they were able to derive synergy from the deal. Also, with almost all these mergers and purchases they were pretty ruthless with their own staff, often keeping the best from the company they swallowed and dumping their own people to get what they thought was the best mix going forward. Company loyalty seems to come a distant second to strategic requirements at Ricoh. They are pretty ruthless in determining their goals and going for them.

Ricoh, in the copier market, has shown that it is not afraid of aggressive pricing either. They seem to have worked out that market share equates to quantity of products produced, which in turn equates to economies of scale and ultimately yields better profit margins.

Its also important to note that Ricoh is strategically very patient. They took years to get to #1 in the copier market, just content with making slow and steady gains every year, inexorably moving towards that target.

Now, everyone is wondering how Ricoh will handle Pentax. Well, just look at their strategy with copiers and their success in that field, and then ask yourself why they would even consider changing a winning strategy...

You can bet your life that Ricoh has a plan all mapped out of exactly what they want from Pentax and how they are going to get it. Where Pentax is weak, Ricoh will strengthen it and where Pentax is strong, Ricoh will exploit it. It may however not be a rapid process, but more a gradual, continuous advance.

I would be very surprised if Ricoh does not drastically improve the marketing and distribution of Pentax cameras and engage in a far more aggressive advertising campaign. I would also expect a thorough rationalization of the product range in the compact camera market and maybe a small expansion in the mid-range "bridge" camera market and with EVIL's. I would anticipate an EVIL with a larger sensor - not quite APS-C but certainly larger than 1/2.3 - which is what the Pentax Q should have had from the beginning.

At the DSLR end of the business, Pentax has a very small range of offerings compared to Canikon, specially with entry level priced DSLRs. Pentax tends to be more expensive than the virtual equivalents from Canon or Nikon.

I would expect to see some real innovative ideas in this level of the business, with a wider range of cameras between entry level and semi-pro models and a broadening of the lens range while keeping with the existing mount systems. Ricoh will want you to upgrade your camera to a newer model Pentax and keep your existing lenses - and maybe add new ones to your inventory. Remember that Ricoh are also heavily invested in optics and electronics as well as firmware/programming so there are bound to be innovations and advances in all these areas.

My guess is that the price range will widen dramatically from very price-competitive entry level DSLRs to a superb semi-pro model which will be correspondingly expensive but highly sought after by serious amateurs. Ricoh will want every buyer of their first DSLR to choose Pentax, so they will be good performers at competitive prices. Once you are locked into Pentax, they will have you as a satisfied customer for life.

Ricoh must also be aware of the need to attract business from the top Professional Photographers. If the world's best pro's use Canon or Nikon, then wannabees also buy Canon or Nikon. Its the way life works. So we should also expect the launch of one or maybe even two really high performance FF offerings from Pentax. Ricoh changed it copier marketing tactic by ceasing to sell "copiers" and moving towards selling "document handling solutions". So now we should anticipate that they will move to selling "photographic solutions". Whatever you want to do with your camera, Pentax will have a product to meet your needs and future expectations. And the lenses and accessories you need to go with it...

Every camera in the new Pentax range will have one or more unique selling points, be it HDR range, High ISO performance, High MP sensors or whatever, and these will be pushed hard in the advertising.

Ricoh has offices and distribution in virtually every place in the world and I would expect Pentax to be distributed and serviced via that existing network, so improved Marketing, Distribution and Technical backup should be available. Ricoh and Pentax fit really well with great advantages from the merger. Clearly Ricoh will have far more money to invest in future development than Hoya and Pentax people have camera design and manufacturing skills not previously available to Ricoh. Ultimately all this must spin down to the market-place where it begins to benefit us - the end users.

We would be naive to think that Ricoh will not be going all out to increase Pentax's market share and, if their copier business is any indication, they will succeed. I would be very surprised if Pentax does not slowly but steadily advance to a major market share of the camera business globally. Besides, they really seem to want to take a knock at Canon.